Gun ownership poll

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Mark17

It works at airports, and some government buildings to protect our esteemed politicians. But you don't want kids to have the same protection.

You say you want "fewer guns in schools" as though there's little difference who has those guns. I want fewer guns in the hands of mass murderers, but since it is usually rather difficult to predict who and when that will happen, I like the idea of guns in the hands of law enforcement. This is something I wish we could agree was "common sense" but you are proof it isn't common.

The shooter at Uvalde got in through a side door.

As you insist on continuing to put words in my mouth in order to argue with your straw man, I'll end this exchange. I should have realized that attempting to communicate with you was going to be a fruitless task when you (without sarcasm, apparently) decried my opinion that too many decisions are being made by groups of old rich men as "sexist" and then went on shortly thereafter to imply that Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford were full of shit. You just can't make this stuff up.

It seems to me that you are proof that in our Divided States of America, reasonable conversation of controversial issues may not be worth attempting. Good luck and good evening to you.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

As you insist on continuing to put words in my mouth in order to argue with your straw man, I'll end this exchange. I should have realized that attempting to communicate with you was going to be a fruitless task when you (without sarcasm, apparently) decried my opinion that too many decisions are being made by groups of old rich men as "sexist" and then went on shortly thereafter to imply that Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford were full of shit. You just can't make this stuff up.

It seems to me that you are proof that in our Divided States of America, reasonable conversation of controversial issues may not be worth attempting. Good luck and good evening to you.

Can’t make it up. Ford sure did though. There’s never been a case with less evidence than hers.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

As you insist on continuing to put words in my mouth in order to argue with your straw man, I'll end this exchange. I should have realized that attempting to communicate with you was going to be a fruitless task when you (without sarcasm, apparently) decried my opinion that too many decisions are being made by groups of old rich men as "sexist" and then went on shortly thereafter to imply that Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford were full of shit. You just can't make this stuff up.

It seems to me that you are proof that in our Divided States of America, reasonable conversation of controversial issues may not be worth attempting. Good luck and good evening to you.

It was Christine Blasey Ford's OWN WITNESSES that said she was mistaken. I believed them.

I don't know if Anita Hill was telling the truth or not.

What I take issue with is the notion that you need a woman to provide "the female" point of view, or you need an Asian person to provide "the Asian" point of view. Because, if you mostly have "old rich men" you will only have the "old rich man" point of view. It is simplistic.

I'm all for diversity because it is fair, and the most qualified people should always be the best choices regardless of any attribute like gender, race, hat size, weight, etc.

Your opposition to protecting kids in schools with metal (gun) detectors and armed guards tells me all I need to know about your "concern" for the kids. You only want armed law enforcement on scene after the kids have begun to get killed.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Your opposition to protecting kids in schools with metal (gun) detectors and armed guards tells me all I need to know about your "concern" for the kids. You only want armed law enforcement on scene after the kids have begun to get killed.

More straw man garbage. I don't think you even read my reply to you if you really believe that. Peace and be well.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

More straw man garbage. I don't think you even read my reply to you if you really believe that. Peace and be well.

Okay, I re-read your previous post. You were against the idea of metal detectors and armed guards in schools, but did concede some bit of merit in the idea. I infer you're maybe 70% opposed, maybe 30% willing to give it a try.

To me, given the fact we've had a lot of success in airports, and the fact politicians want their armed protection for themselves, that we should all agree kids in schools deserve the same protection, period.

Reality is, there are homicidal nut cases in this country. Yes it's annoying, but we need to protect ourselves and our kids, even when inconvenient.

[G1911]

I am for a cop in schools. My state university, of a normal size, had an entire police department to bust students for a dime bag or drinking at 19. They can easily afford to put a cop in each elementary school. I get that making money off speeding tickets or arresting college kids for victimless crime is easier for police departments, but I cannot fathom why protecting kids should not be the priority. It would be a good PR move for them as well, an image of protecting kids will probably play better than hustling people for victimless petty crap.

I am against metal detectors in public schools, on 4th amendment grounds that searching every single person who enters a building (which they are effectively compelled to do by the state) is not reasonable cause for search. I am against it at airports for the same reason - reasonable cause is necessary to search. I am fine with it if a private business makes their own rules, but government needs to follow the Constitution. I am aware this view will probably be agreed with by nobody.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am against metal detectors in public schools, on 4th amendment grounds that searching every single person who enters a building (which they are effectively compelled to do by the state) is not reasonable cause for search. I am against it at airports for the same reason - reasonable cause is necessary to search. I am fine with it if a private business makes their own rules, but government needs to follow the Constitution. I am aware this view will probably be agreed with by nobody.

I think it's a different matter with schools. For instance, schools can have dress codes or even have uniforms for students. Schools can punish kids who speak out of turn, or run down hallways, or tease their classmates. Many of the rules students must comply with would certainly be unconstitutional if imposed on the populace at large.

Kids shouldn't have guns or knives in school, and they, or their parents, should consent to electronic inspections for them.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I think it's a different matter with schools. For instance, schools can have dress codes or even have uniforms for students. Schools can punish kids who speak out of turn, or run down hallways, or tease their classmates. Many of the rules students must comply with would certainly be unconstitutional if imposed on the populace at large.

Kids shouldn't have guns or knives in school, and they, or their parents, should consent to electronic inspections for them.

I don’t think a dress code really violates the Bill of Rights. History strongly supports that children have restricted rights, but it also supports that they do still have rights. Detectors and searches would also be for all adults who enter a government building at which being present is mandatory or effectively mandatory (it’s illegal to just not send your kids if you can’t full time homeschool them, at least in most jurisdictions that I am aware of).

Of course I agree kids shouldn’t tote a Glock to class; but I do not think this rare case and interest overrides the 4th amendment rights of everyone. Searching everyone is exactly what the 4th prohibits. This is one of the reasons I am against them in most places such as the airport - boarding an airplane is not reasonable cause that someone is likely engaging in criminal activity.

I know this view will be unpopular and I disagree with most on ‘my side’. I just don’t see a way that this doesn’t violate the 4th and I usually come down on the side of the right of the individual over a right of the state to regulate that individual, even when it isn’t so directly constitutional. Ironically, that made me pretty left wing not too long ago.